JUDGMENT A.P. Lavande, J.— Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 74/1998 confirming the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class 10th Court, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No. 45/1993 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The learned Magistrate ordered that in case fine is paid, the amount of Rs. 1000/- shall be paid to the Mahananda — victim as compensation. 3. Briefly facts, which are necessary for disposal of criminal revision application are as follows :- On 24-1-1999 when the complainant Mahananda was returning from her field, the applicant came for behind and stopped mahananda and caught hold her waist from behind and made her fall on the ground with intention to outrage her modesty. Pursuant to the report filed by the victim, the investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was filed and the applicant was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 10, Nagpur. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. After recording the statements of witnesses, the applicant did not lead evidence in defence. The case of the applicant is of simple denial. The Trial Court convicted the applicant as aforesaid and against the conviction and sentence, the appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant has filed the present revision challenging the judgment of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant. 4. Mr. Daga submitted that he is not seriously challenging the conviction having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in so far as interference against the judgment and order of conviction concerned in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, Mr. Daga submits that the applicant is seriously aggrieved by the sentence imposed on him which according to Mr. Daga is highly excessive. Mr. Daga submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances brought on record and having regard to the manner in which the modesty of the complainant was outraged, the sentence imposed is highly excessive. However, Mr. Daga submits that the applicant is seriously aggrieved by the sentence imposed on him which according to Mr. Daga is highly excessive. Mr. Daga submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances brought on record and having regard to the manner in which the modesty of the complainant was outraged, the sentence imposed is highly excessive. He also, submits that there was delay of three days in lodging the report at the police station which also creates some doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Mr. Daga also submits that the applicant had been in custody for some time and it will be not just and proper to sent him in jail at this stage. Mr. Daga further submits that the applicant has already paid and fine of Rs. 5000/- and, out of which, Rs. 1,000/- has already been paid to the complainant Mahananda. Mr. Daga has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala1  and submitted that having regard to the said decision sentence of three months would meet the ends of justice. 5. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent submits that the delay has been properly explained and, in any case, delay in lodging report has been sufficiently explained and in any event the delay in lodging report of this type of offence is not fatal to the prosecution case. He submits that the Apex Court time and again has held that in rape cases delay in lodging F.I.R. is not fatal to the prosecution case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent. The incident in question occurred on 24-1-1993. There is three days delay in lodging the F.I.R. I am unable to accept the submission made by the Mr. Daga that nominal sentence be imposed. Since the offence committed by the applicant is against woman, lenient view cannot be taken in such type of offences. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the applicant is concerned, it is well settled that there cannot be precedent in the matter of sentencing the accused and each case has to be decided on its own merits. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and the fact that sentence of fine of Rs. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the applicant is concerned, it is well settled that there cannot be precedent in the matter of sentencing the accused and each case has to be decided on its own merits. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and the fact that sentence of fine of Rs. 5000/- has been imposed on the applicant, in my opinion, the ends of justice shall be made if the substantive sentence of imprisonment for two years imposed on the applicant is reduced into six months rigorous imprisonment. 7. The applicant shall undergo six months R.I. and sentence of fine of Rs. 5000/- is maintained out of which Rs. 1000/- is to be paid to the victim Mahananda. 8. In case the applicant has not paid the fine, the Magistrate shall ensure that the order passed by this Court is complied with. 9. Revision application is partly allowed. Sentence of imprisonment of two years imposed by the Trial Court and maintained by the Appellate Court is set aside and applicant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one month. 10. The applicant to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate First Class 10th Court, Nagpur on or before 30th June, 2004. In case, applicant does not surrender, the Magistrate shall take coercive steps to secure the presence of the applicant. 11. With the above observation, the revision application is disposed of. Revision allowed partly. 1. 2003 (4) Crimes 497.